5 ms·
Amazon makes Kindle app Apple compliant by removing one URL link
- darylteo 15y agoSurely this particular restriction should be considered anti-competitive? Where is the FTC?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- ars 15y agoThis market is too new for the FTC to get involved. They like to let new markets grow unencumbered for a while.
- danilocampos 15y agoProbably waiting to act against actual monopolies, I suspect.
- ujjwalg 15y agoApple rejected our iPhone/iPad app for the exact same reason. We had a link to our website in the help section.
- darylteo 15y agoSo you removed the link?
- jokermatt999 15y agoI really wish they hadn't backed down. Yes, it's Apple's store, they can do what they want, but I feel like they get away with ridiculous changes like this because, well, they're Apple.
- darylteo 15y agoDepending on how you look at it, they could also be giving Apple the finger, saying they will not follow Apple's asinine lock-in restrictions. Unfortunately in the end, the developers suffer.
- tybris 15y agoThey backed down alright, by creating a competing app store and presumably a competing tablet.
- shinratdr 15y agoFrom Gruber: > There you go. This is the result of Apple putting its own interests ahead of those of its users. It’s certainly not drastic (as it would be if Amazon had pulled the app from the store entirely), but in no way can it be argued that this is an improvement for users. I think that says it all. If Gruber isn't even going to bother to try and defend it (or even play devil's advocate), then it's probably indefensible.
- orangecat 15y agoPerhaps he'll reconsider his claim that Android's relative openness only matters to "zealots" (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/07/25/doctorow http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/07/25/doctorow). But probably not.
- thedragon4453 15y agoBecause it's not really defensible. The best you could say is that Apple stands to make money, which is good for Apple, but even that's not really true, since everyone is just pulling the buttons so they don't have to pay Apple.
- moonlighter 15y agoHe just posted an update, for what it's worth: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/07/26/frommer-kindle http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/07/26/frommer-kindle
- fpgeek 15y agoIf you want more details on Apple's new policies you can look here: http://quatermain.tumblr.com/post/8045895465/my-review-of-the-kobo-app http://quatermain.tumblr.com/post/8045895465/my-review-of-th... The Kobo app is another ebook reader, like Kindle. The number of different things they tried to satisfy Apple is breathtaking. Last I heard (via the same Kobo developer on Twitter), one-star reviews of their new app have taken them from 4.5 stars to 2.5 stars in just a few days.
- moonlighter 15y agoSome additional coverage on MacWorld.com: http://www.macworld.com/article/161325/2011/07/kindle_drops_store_button_adds_periodicals.html http://www.macworld.com/article/161325/2011/07/kindle_drops_...
- rwa 15y agoI understand that Apple is doing this because of e readers directly competing with iBooks, but according to Apple's new rules it should harm any companies selling products outside of Apple's store. Does this mean the eBay app will be pulled if apple doesn't get it's 30% cut? What about groupon,rdio, tha amazon store and many other apps that can't possibly hand over 30% of their sales to Apple when they don't have those kind of margins to work with.
- hootmon 15y agoThe short attention span generation is just starting to learn why monopolies are bad.
- smackfu 15y agoThe original Apple requirements would have required Amazon to pull the app entirely, right? (Or sell all their Kindle books directly through Apple IAP and give Apple 30%, which was never going to happen.)